%@ Language=VBScript %> <% CheckState() CheckSub() %>
Journal of Advertising ResearchAdvertising Research Foundation 641 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10022; (212) 751-5656 |
Vol. 43, No. 2, June 2003 |
Charles
R. Taylor
Villnova University
and
George
R. Franke
University of Alabama
Expenditures
on outdoor advertising in the United States exceeded $5.1 billion
in 2001 (Marketing Factbook, 2002), reflecting a newfound
enthusiasm for outdoor advertising among media planners (Neuborne
and Weil, 2000). Nevertheless, the long history of controversy
over outdoor advertising continues to the present (Taylor and
Chang, 1995). On one side of the debate are those who argue that
outdoor is an effective medium that helps to create jobs and is
widely appreciated by the public (Outdoor Advertising Association
of America, 2000). On the other side are critics of the industry
who use terms such as 'visual pollution,' 'sky trash,' 'litter on
a stick,' and 'the junk mail of the American highway' to describe
billboards. In fact, many critics believe that billboards should
be strictly regulated, or even eliminated (Scenic America, 2000;
Vespe, 1997).
Clearly,
over the years anti-billboard arguments have had some influence.
Billboards are currently banned completely in four states
(Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont), and various municipalities
have passed restrictive laws on outdoor advertising. Because of
the efforts of outdoor advertising critics, recent years have
seen numerous attempts to further restrict billboard advertising
(Scenic America, 2000). For example, in the November 2000
elections, Missouri voters defeated a ballot initiative that
would have banned new billboard construction in the state, while
voters in Reno, Nevada passed a similar initiative.
In
spite of the continued dispute over the merits of outdoor
advertising, only a limited number of academic studies have
addressed issues involved in this important debate. To give
insight on several relevant issues, this article presents the
results of a national survey of billboard users and nonusers. One
issue studied relates to the value of billboards. Some have
argued that billboards do not benefit society and are an ugly and
unnecessary intrusion on scenery (Vespe, 1997). Others counter
that billboards do provide value (Laible, 1997). Thus, one key
question is how advertisers evaluate the medium. What benefits do
users see in billboard advertising? How do users and nonusers of
billboards evaluate the broader mix of available advertising
media? In particular. how do advertisers perceive billboards'
ability to communicate, attract customers, and increase sales?
Some
critics (for example, Scenic America) have suggested that even if
billboards do provide benefits, other media or on-premise signs
are viable and less-intrusive alternatives. If so. a stronger
case for restrictive regulation could be made. Therefore, a
second key question is whether billboard users believe effective
substitutes for billboards are available. If not, what would be
the effect of a billboard advertising ban on sales?
Because
the effects of billboard regulations may not affect all
advertisers equally, a third key question is whether there are
differences in perceptions of billboard advertising across
business types. Business size, whether or not the business is
travel related, and the number of billboards used may all
influence the importance of the medium to the organization. They
may also determine the availability and affordability of
effective substitute media. Thus, these analyses all have
relevance to the policy debate.
In
a review of the available evidence on outdoor advertising,
Woodside (1990) observed that outdoor's primary advantage over
other media is its high frequency of exposure in an environment
with relatively little clutter. Woodside also concluded that
outdoor advertising is likely to be effective in increasing sales
if used properly.
Executional
elements play a role in how effective outdoor advertisements will
be. Using content analysis, Blasko (1985) found that large
outdoor advertisers were more likely to follow accepted creative
principles of outdoor advertising than were small advertisers. He
provided guidelines that would allow local and regional
advertisers to develop more effective outdoor advertisements. A
later group of studies conducted by Donthu, Cherian, and Bhargava
(1993) and Bhargava, Donthu, and Caron (1994) found recall to be
positively related to a variety of factors, including brand
differentiation, emphasis on product performance in the
advertisement, inclusion of price in the advertisement, use of a
photograph in the advertisement, use of humor, use of color, and
a good location. In two recent experiments, Bhargava and Donthu
(1999) found that outdoor advertising has the ability to quickly
generate sales response, but that location and other marketing
mix variables are moderating factors. Collectively, the
literature suggests that well conceived and placed outdoor
advertising can be effective in increasing awareness and
generating sales.
Other
studies have focused on issues linked to the policy debate,
including targeting and content decisions. Lee and Calcott (1994)
examined whether alcohol and tobacco advertisements are
disproportionately targeted at minorities. An analysis of
billboards in Detroit and San Antonio indicated that
advertisements for vice products (for example, cigarettes and
alcohol) were evenly directed at Anglo, Hispanic, and
African-American groups, although there did appear to be a
negative correlation between income levels and billboard density.
In large-scale content analyses of billboards in Michigan and
Pennsylvania, Taylor and Taylor (1994) and Taylor (1997) found
that billboards provide a wide range of potentially useful
information to consumers. They concluded that small businesses
would be harmed by a lack of access to billboards.
In
summary, prior academic research suggests that when it is used
appropriately, billboards can provide benefits to the businesses
that use them. Our hypotheses relate to perceptions of the
importance of these benefits and the availability of alternatives
that can provide the same benefits as billboards.
The
literature suggests several advantages of outdoor advertising
(for example, Arens, 1999; Kotler, 1997). Billboards help to
communicate with and attract new customers; they allow efficient
targeting of consumers in a given trade area; and they are
cost-effective compared to other media. Furthermore, the size and
placement flexibility of billboards allow them to serve a
function that is different from a business's on-premise sign. In
this study, billboard users were asked whether they agree that
the above benefits are characteristic of their experience with
billboard advertising. As nonusers did not have recent
experience, this question was asked only of users.
For
billboard users, size of business, type of business, and the
importance of billboards in the media mix may also influence
billboard evaluations. For small businesses, other media may not
be as affordable or as efficient in reaching a local trade area
(King and Tinkham, 1989/1990; McGann and Russell, 1988).
Travel-related businesses (for example, hotels, restaurants,
entertainment/tourism, and gas stations) may be more reliant on
billboards than other types of businesses due to the need to
direct motorists to their location or convince them of the
benefits of the business as they pass by (Taylor and Taylor,
1994). Reflecting their greater expenditures on billboard
advertising, heavy users should have more positive perceptions
than light users. Thus:
Both
users' and nonusers' perceptions are relevant in the context of
the overall media mix. Three important dimensions that media
planners may consider are the ability of billboards to (1)
communicate information at an affordable price, (2) attract new
customers, and (3) increase sales. If advertisers' behaviors are
consistent with their perceptions, billboard ratings on all three
dimensions should increase with increasing use of the medium. As
with Hypothesis H1, ratings should also be affected by business
size and type:
For
businesses that depend on the unique advantages of outdoor
advertising (Kotler, 1997; McGann and Russell, 1988), it is
likely that they will not perceive other media to be a close
substitute for billboards. The measures used to test Hypotheses
H2-H4 allow an indirect test of whether other media can
substitute for billboards by comparing users' and non-users'
perceptions of billboards versus other media. Users should rate
billboards higher than other media. Non-users should rate
billboards lower than at least some media alternatives;
otherwise, they would logically include billboards in their media
mix. Due to the large number of possible media comparisons
available, the following hypotheses are not further broken down
by business size, type, or intensity of billboard use. Thus:
Hypotheses
H5 and H6 involve comparisons of billboards versus other media
for both users and nonusers. For users only, it is appropriate to
ask directly whether other media can substitute for billboards.
Based on similar rationales as in the previous hypotheses,
it is also predicted that smaller businesses, travel-related
businesses, and heavy users of billboards will hold this opinion
even more strongly than their counterparts. Because it makes
little sense to evaluate whether other media can take the place
of a medium that is not being used, nonusers of billboards are
not included in the hypothesis. Thus:
If
billboards provide important benefits to businesses, and if
billboard users have no good alternative media available, then
their economic impact must be strongly considered in debates over
billboard regulation. A particular business could conceivably see
an increase in sales following billboard ban if it were losing
customers competitors making more effective use of the medium. On
the whole, though, it likely that billboard users will expect to
lose sales if denied access to billboards, given the medium's
particular advantages: high reach and frequency in a local area,
the ability to communicate effectively a concise message to the
target audience, and low cost (Arens, 1999; Kotler, 1997). As
with the above hypotheses, it is likely that the impact will be
greater on small businesses, travel-related businesses, and heavy
users of billboards, because they are generally more reliant on
these advantages than are other businesses. Because the medium is
not important to nonusers, they should expect no impact from a
billboard ban. Thus:
Two
sampling frames were used for the study. One frame was a national
listing, provided by the Outdoor Advertising Association of
America, of more than 5,000 companies that use billboards. For
the survey, a random sample of 1,315 companies was selected from
the list. These companies were sent a cover letter requesting
their participation in the survey, along with the questionnaire
and business reply envelope. Confidentiality of individual
responses was assured in the cover letter, and respondents were
promised a summary report of the findings upon request. Five
weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up mailing was sent to
those firms that had not responded to the initial mailing. Of the
1,315 surveys sent, 168 were returned as undeliverable. Responses
were obtained from 348 of the delivered questionnaires, for a
response rate of 30 percent. Eleven of these respondents reported
that they had not used billboards in recent years, and another
response was not usable due to insufficient information.
Potential
non-response bias was assessed by comparing respondents to the
first mailing with respondents to the second mailing in terms of
number of employees and number of billboards used. Differences
were not statistically significant, suggesting that non-response
bias based on these dimensions was not present in the sample.
Additionally, follow-up phone calls were made or attempted to a
random sample of 97 non-respondents. In many cases (43 percent),
a current phone number could not be obtained for the business.
The remaining calls indicated that the reasons for non-response
were not related to factors that could cause bias in the results.
The most commonly cited reasons were that the company no longer
uses outdoor advertising that the person who was the decision
maker recently left the company, and that the company had a
policy against filling out surveys or did not have time to fill
out the survey.
In
a follow-up to the original mailing, surveys were sent to a
smaller sample of general advertisers. The sampling frame used
was a commercial mailing list of businesses in states where
billboard advertising is legal. In a single mailing, surveys were
sent to 475 addresses from this list, resulting in 34 surveys
returned as undeliverable and 73 usable responses, for a response
rate of 17 percent. Of the 73 responses, 57 were from nonusers of
billboards. For purposes of analysis, the nonusers in the first
sample were combined with nonusers in the second for an n of 68,
as were the billboard users from both samples for an o of 352.
In
the first survey, which targeted billboard users, respondents
were asked to indicate their agreement with a series of
statements regarding their company's experience using billboards.
Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree.' The following statements
were included: billboards help us to attract new customers,
billboards allow us to communicate our messages to our consumers,
billboards allow us to reach consumers in our trade area more
efficiently, billboards are cost-effective compared to other
media, and billboards serve a function that is different from
that of our on-premise sign. This survey also included the
following question regarding the availability of substitutes for
billboards:
Both
surveys asked respondents to evaluate a variety of media in terms
of their effectiveness in communicating information, bringing new
customers to the place of business, and increasing sales. The
following question was also asked of all respondents regarding
their perceptions of the effects of a billboard ban:
Because
the hypotheses involve comparisons between groups-billboard users
versus nonusers, small businesses versus large, etc-a
straightforward analysis approach would be to test for
significance using Student's t-test. However, larger businesses
are likely to use more billboards than smaller businesses, and
business size or billboard use may also correlate with whether
the business is travel-related or not. If so, performing separate
t-tests for each business characteristic would cause results for
each hypothesis test to be confounded with results for the
others. Regression with dummy variables is therefore used to test
the propositions related to size of business, type of business,
and billboard usage. Each regression coefficient shows the
magnitude of the difference between groups, controlling for the
effects of the other predictors in the equation. The regression
analyses therefore provide unified, simultaneous tests of the
hypothesized effects of business characteristics.
Figure
1 shows that respondents represented a wide range of lines of
business. For users, the three most common categories of
respondents are hotels, restaurants, and retail stores. In
addition to these categories, respondents included businesses
from the following areas: entertainment! tourism,
banking/insurance, gas stations, manufactured products, auto
dealerships, real estate, and media. For nonusers, not
surprisingly, a higher percentage of respondents were
manufacturing firms. There was also a higher proportion of
respondents in the 'other' category, including miscellaneous
service businesses and distributors.
Figure
2 and Figure
3 show the number of years that firms in the sample have been
in business and have been using billboards, respectively. The
median user has been in business for between 11 and 25 years and
has been using billboards within the same 11-25 year range. Figure
4 shows the breakdown of size of business as measured by
number of employees. The businesses in the sample represent a
wide range of sizes. Among billboard users, nearly half of the
companies responding (48.2 percent) have fewer than 50 employees.
Thus, small businesses are well represented in the sample. Among
nonusers only slightly over one-quarter (26.5 percent) of the
respondents had fewer than 50 employees. Moreover, as shown in Figure
5, 48.3 percent of users report using between one and four
billboards, indicating that many of the businesses do not use
large numbers of billboards in a given month.
The
'Mean' column of Table 1 shows that billboard users have positive
views of their experience with billboard advertising. Consistent
with Hypothesis Hi, the mean rating for each of the five reasons
is significantly above the midpoint of 4 on the 7-point scale,
indicating agreement with the statement (t > 11.1, p <
.001). The highest mean ratings are for billboards serving a
different function than on-premise signs (6.13), billboards'
ability to attract new customers (5.77), and billboards' ability
to communicate the firm's message to consumers (5.63). Agreement
is also shown with statements that billboards allow the business
to reach its trade area (5.41) and are cost-effective (4.99).
Standardized regression coefficients |
||||
Reason |
Meana |
Sizeb |
Typec |
Billboard usage |
Attract new customers | 5.76 | .02** | .14** | .34** |
Communicate message to customers | 5.62 | .23** | .14* | .27** |
Allow us to reach trade area | 5.40 | .21** | .09 | .25** |
Cost-effective | 4.98 | .20** | .09 | .31** |
Different function than on-premise sign | 6.12 | .03 | .08 | .14* |
*p < .05, **p <
.01
|
The
regression results shown in Table 1 indicate that small
businesses have significantly more positive views than large
businesses on four of the five reasons for using billboards. The
only exception is that small and large businesses agreed equally
with the statement that billboards serve a different function
than on-premise signs. This pattern generally supports Hypothesis
H1a. Travel-related businesses showed stronger agreement on
billboards' ability to attract new customers and communicate
messages to consumers, partially supporting Hypothesis H1b.
Hypothesis H1c is consistently supported, with heavier users of
billboards showing greater agreement with all of the statements.
To
test Hypothesis H2, respondents were asked to rate billboards in
terms of their ability to communicate information at an
affordable price. As can be seen in Table 1, users rate
billboards' communication ability higher than do nonusers, as
predicted in the hypothesis. The mean rating for billboards is
5.33, significantly above non-users' rating of 2.87 (p <
.001).
For
the regression analysis of Hypotheses H2a-2c, two dummy variables
were created to contrast heavy users (five or more billboards per
month) and light users (one to four billboards per month) with
nonusers. The results in Table 1 show higher ratings for
billboards' ability to communicate among small businesses,
travel-related businesses, and billboard users. Heavy users show
substantially higher agreement than light users, who in turn show
higher agreement than nonusers. Therefore, the findings support
Hypotheses H2a, H2b, and H2c.
Table
1 also shows support for Hypotheses H3 and H4. Users rate
billboards higher than nonusers in terms of their ability to
bring new customers to their business, 5.34 versus 3.28 on a
7-point scale. An identical margin is found for billboards'
ability to increase the business' sales, 5.08 for users versus
3.02 for nonusers. Supporting H3a-H3c and H4a-H4c, the regression
analyses show that smaller businesses, travel-related businesses,
and users of billboards all rate billboards higher in terms of
their ability to attract new customers and increase sales. Heavy
users' ratings are approximately two points higher than nonusers'
ratings, and light users' ratings are more than one point higher
than nonusers' ratings.
Table
2 shows billboard users' and non-users' ratings of various media
on the three dimensions considered in Hypotheses H5 and H6:
ability to communicate information at an affordable price,
attract new customers, and increase sales. (The billboard ratings
are repeated from Table 1 for easier comparison.) Consistent with
H5, billboard users rate billboards significantly higher than the
other media on all three dimensions. The smallest difference is
between billboards' and radio's ability to communicate
information, averaging 5.33 versus 4.22 on a 7-point scale. For
this measure, local newspapers, local television, flyers, and the
internet also rate above the scale midpoint of 4, whereas
national television, magazines, and regional/national newspapers
rate below 3.5. Billboard users rate all media other than
billboards below 4 on their ability to attract new customers and
increase sales.
Affordably communicate informationa |
Attract new customersb |
Increase salesb |
Provide close substitute for billboardsc |
||||
Medium |
Users |
Nonusers |
Users |
Nonusers |
Users |
Nonusers |
|
Billboards | 5.30 | 2.87 | 5.40 | 3.43 | 5.14 | 3.12 | |
Flyers | 4.06 | 4.06 | 3.47 | 3.34 | 3.43 | 3.69 | 3.42 |
Radio | 4.22 | 3.25 | 3.79 | 3.59 | 3.68 | 3.57 | 3.59 |
Local newspapers | 4.17 | 3.68 | 3.65 | 3.69 | 3.60 | 3.52 | 3.57 |
Regional newspapers | 3.10 | 2.97 | 2.66 | 2.96 | 2.54 | 2.68 | 2.67 |
Local TV | 4.03 | 3.62 | 3.96 | 4.07 | 3.89 | 3.93 | 3.63 |
National TV | 3.07 | 4.06 | 3.02 | 3.30 | 3.08 | 3.25 | 3.04 |
Magazines | 3.43 | 3.91 | 2.85 | 3.10 | 2.73 | 3.03 | 2.91 |
Internet | 4.04 | 4.49 | 3.55 | 3.80 | 3.41 | 3.67 | 3.35 |
aThe response
scale ranged from 1 to 7, with 1 = very ineffective and 7
= very effective. Billboard means are significantly
greater than the means for all other media (t > 8.3, p
< .001).
|
Consistent
with Hypothesis H6a, non-users' ratings of billboards' ability to
communicate information affordably are significantly lower than
their ratings of the internet, flyers, magazines, local
newspapers, and local television. The results show weaker support
for Hypotheses H6b and H6c. Billboards' ability to attract new
customers is significantly lower only compared to local
television, although the difference is almost significant (p <
.06) for local newspapers and the internet.
Billboards
are rated lower than the internet and local television in terms
of ability to increase sales and marginally (p < .07) lower
than flyers, local newspapers, and radio.
Table
3 shows billboard users' ratings of alternative media's ability
to serve as a close substitute for its billboards. (This issue
has little relevance to nonusers, so they were not asked this
question in the survey.) Ratings for all of the alternative media
are significantly below 4, the neutral point on the scale,
indicating that the respondents do not believe that any of these
alternatives are a close substitute for billboards. Three local
media receive average scores of around 3.6: television, radio,
and newspapers. Flyers, the internet, national television,
magazines, and non-local newspapers were rated even lower than
these alternatives. Thus, H7 is supported.
Standardized regression coefficients |
Billboard usage |
|||
Hypothesis and medium evaluated |
Business sizea |
Business typeb |
High versus low |
Low versus nonusers |
H2a-c: Billboards | .25** | .08 | .30** | .63** |
H3a-c: Billboards | .30** | .15** | .30** | .57** |
H4a-c: Billboards | .36** | .26** | .34** | .52** |
H5a-c: Flyers | .02 | .07 | .01 | |
H5a-c: Radio | .18** | .14* | .06 | |
H5a-c: Local newspapers | .11 | .21** | .03 | |
H5a-c: Regional newspapers | .16** | .02 | .01 | |
H5a-c: Local TV | .16** | .04 | .09 | |
H5a-c: National TV | .16* | .20** | .04 | |
H5a-c: Magazines | .08 | .01 | .01 | |
H5a-c: Internet | .04 | .04 | .01 | |
H7a-c: Expected decline in sales | .28** | .16** | .24** | .47** |
*p < .05 **p < .01
|
The
regressions used to test Hypotheses H7a-H7c treat the
substitutability ratings as the dependent variables. As shown in
Table 3, the results are partially consistent with H7a. Smaller
businesses give significantly lower ratings for the
substitutability of four media at the .05 level, and a fifth,
local newspapers, is marginally significant (p < .058). Only
magazines, flyers, and the internet are clearly not seen as less
substitutable by smaller businesses than larger businesses.
There
is less support for Hypotheses H7b and H7c. As predicted in H7b,
travel-related businesses are less likely than other businesses
to view local newspapers and radio as an alternative to
billboards. However, contrary to the hypothesis, they are more
likely to view national television as a substitute for
billboards, and there are no differences for the other media.
Contrary to Hypothesis H7c, the number of billboards is not
significant in any of the regressions.
Table
4 shows that 75.1 percent of billboard users indicate they would
lose sales if billboard advertising were banned versus only 2.0
percent of nonusers. A minute fraction of the combined group of
users and nonusers (0.3 percent) believe that sales would
increase by 10 percent as a result of a ban, and the rest
anticipate no effect of a ban. The average estimated decrease in
sales is 13.8 percent for users and just 0.2 percent for
nonusers. Considering only those respondents who indicated that a
loss would occur, the average estimate of lost sales is 18.4
percent for billboard users and 12 percent for non-users. The
regressions in Table 4 show that greater proportions of
respondents anticipating a decline in sales, and greater expected
losses, are found for smaller businesses, travel-related
businesses, and heavier users of billboards. (The mean expected
losses for these groups are 20.7 percent, 19.2 percent, and 20.5
percent, respectively.) These findings support Hypotheses H8a,
H8b, and H8c.
All usersa |
Small businessesb |
Large businesses |
|
Proportion indicating a decline in sales | 251 (75.1%) | 121 (81.1%) | 130 (69.9%) |
Average estimated sales loss | 18.4 | 20.7 | 15.8 |
aThe
average estimated sales loss includes only respondents
who indicated that a sales loss would occur.
|
Responses
to a national survey of more than 400 businesses clearly indicate
that billboard users perceive the medium to offer a variety of
benefits. They see it as a cost-effective way of attracting
customers, communicating information, and reaching their trade
area. They also view billboard advertising as able to increase
sales, especially compared to nonusers. Billboard ratings are
generally more positive for small businesses and heavy users of
billboards. Travel-related businesses also give higher ratings on
the critical dimensions of communicating, attracting customers,
and increasing sales.
These
findings are consistent with marketing and advertising textbook
discussions of the characteristics of outdoor advertising. For
many businesses, billboards are a low-cost medium that is
especially effective in providing high reach sod frequency in a
localized trade area (King and Tinkham, 1989/1990; Kotler, 1997;
McGann and Russell, 1988). This advantage is important in many
contexts, hut can be critical for two types of businesses: (1)
retail and service businesses that serve local trade areas (2)
travel-and-tourism-related businesses that rely on motorists
passing through the area. Not coincidentally, businesses in these
categories are the heaviest users of billboards.
Billboard
users strongly feel that billboards serve a different function
than their on-premise sign, whose primary purpose is to identify
the store and enhance store image (for example, Berman and Evans,
1998; Lusch, Dunne, and Gebhardt, 1993). Unlike signs, billboards
can provide directions to a business from locations that are not
visible from the place of business. Many businesses that are not
easily visible from major thoroughfares cannot use on-premise
signs to provide directions to their location.
Billboard
users are consistent in their evaluations of billboards versus
other media. They see it as better able to communicate
information affordably, attract new customers, and increase sales
than other local media, and substantially more effective than
national television, magazines, and newspapers. Given this
pattern, it is not surprising that billboard users do not see
other media as cost-effective substitutes for billboards.
Interestingly, as can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, the rank order
of other media as a substitute for billboards corresponds to
their ability to increase sales. Flyers can be locally targeted
but have limited potential for effective reach. Other local
media, such as newspapers, radio, and television, involve both
higher cost per thousand exposures (CPMs) and waste circulation.
Additionally, production costs associated with developing
billboards are generally substantially lower than traditional
media such as magazines, radio, and television (Arens, 1999).
Billboard
users believe a ban on billboard advertising would reduce sales
by an average of almost 14 percent. Small businesses,
travel-related businesses, and heavy users of billboards are
especially pessimistic about the effects of a ban, anticipating a
sales decline of around 20 percent, suggesting that the
consequences of a ban in certain segments would be serious.
In
contrast to billboard users, nonusers rate billboards much lower
overall and relative to other media on dimensions, such as
communicating a message at an affordable price, attracting
customers, and increasing sales. As shown in Table 2, nonusers
rate the internet, flyers, and magazines as the top media for
communicating information at an affordable price. For attracting
new customers, local television, the internet, and local
newspapers received the highest ratings. Finally, for increasing
sales, the internet, local television, and flyers are at the top
of the list. With the exception of the internet receiving an
average rating of 4.49 on affordably communicating information
(.43 above the next closest medium), the gap between the highest
rated media and other media on these dimensions is not large in
comparison to the gap between billboard user ratings of
billboards versus other media. This suggests that the aggregate
group of non-users surveyed in this study see merits in several
different media, likely depending on their unique advertising
goals. However, the considerably lower rankings of billboards by
nonusers in comparison to users (see Table 1) suggest that users
see the medium's unique advantages as meeting their needs while
nonusers do not.
The
relatively high rating of the internet on all three dimensions
shown in Table 2 is interesting in that it suggests that internet
advertising, in spite of its well-documented problems over the
past several years, may have potential appeal to a wide range of
businesses. If more effective creative strategies that are not
viewed as obtrusive by the consumer can be developed, advertising
over the internet may have more promise in the long run than has
currently been shown. Interestingly, no other medium stood out as
having ratings that are noticeably high across all three measures
shown in Table 2.
Nonusers
also anticipate that a billboard ban would have very little
effect on their sales. This finding is expected, as eliminating
access to any medium not being currently used would usually be
perceived as having little impact on sales. However, one viable
explanation for many nonusers avoiding billboards is that precise
localized targeting may be less of an issue for these businesses
than for billboard users. It would also seem likely that
advertising budgets may be less of a concern for nonusers, given
that the lower costs of billboards (Arens, 1999) do not make them
rank higher relative to other media. The higher proportion of
small businesses in the nonuser sample, which prior literature
suggests would be consistent with the overall population figures,
lends credibility to this latter explanation.
The
findings of this national survey of businesses provide
information that is useful in assessing the ongoing
regulatory debate over billboards. The three major issues
investigated were related to (1) whether billboards have value,
(2) whether there are alternatives that can serve as substitutes
for billboards, and (3) whether a ban on billboards would have
any economic impact. With respect to the first question, it is
clear that billboards provide value to businesses that use them.
Billboards allow businesses to communicate information about
their product offering. Additionally, billboard users see the
medium as having unique and important benefits that help their
business. These unique qualities include the ability to reach a
local trade area, attract new customers at an affordable price,
and generate sales.
Investigation
of the availability of alternatives to billboards paints a clear
picture. The respondents who use billboards clearly indicate that
on-premise signs do not serve the same function as billboards.
The respondents also make it clear that other media, including
television, radio, newspapers, magazines, flyers, and the
internet, are not substitutes for their billboards. These other
media are also not rated to be as effective as billboards in
attracting new customers or in increasing sales. This is
especially the case for small businesses and travel-related
businesses.
The
findings point to a stark contrast in media perceptions between
billboard users and nonusers. Users and nonusers have perceptions
of other media that are relatively homogeneous but have strong
differences of opinion on the value of billboards. Therefore, a
substantive implication of the findings is that it is important
to distinguish between users and nonusers in research on
perceptions of the role of billboards. A general survey of
businesses will strongly understate the importance of billboards
to billboard users. A community or state considering a ban on
billboards should focus on users not on the overall population of
businesses in the community or state to get an accurate picture
of the effects of the ban.
Finally,
and perhaps most important, the findings indicate that a majority
of billboard users expect a substantial decrease in sales if they
do not have access to billboards. Expected losses are especially
large for smaller businesses, those that serve travelers, and
heavier users of billboards. If new regulations on outdoor
advertising led to such an outcome, many businesses would find
the effects to be devastating.
Arens, William F. Contemporary Advertise New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1999.
Berman, Barry, and Joel Evans. Retail Management. New
York: MacMillan, 1998.
Bhargava, Mukesh, Naveen Donthu, and Rosanne Caron.
'Improving the Effectiveness of Outdoor Advertising.' Journal of
Advertising Research 34, 2 (1994): 4655.
_____, and _____. 'Sales Response to Outdoor
Advertising.' Journal of Advertising Research 39, 4 (1999):
718.
Blasko, Vincent J. 'A Content Analysis of the Creative
Characteristics of Outdoor Advertising: National vs. Regional
Differences.' In Proceedings of the, 1985 Conference of the
American Academy of Advertising, Nancy Stephens, ed. Tempe, AZ,
1985.
Donthu, Naveen, Joseph Cherian, and Mukesh Bhargava.
'Factors Influencing Re call of Outdoor Advertising.' Journal of
Advertising Research 33, 3 (1993): 6472.
King, Karen W., and Spencer F. Tinkham 'The Learning and
Retention of Outdoor Advertising.' Journal of Advertising
Research 29, (1989): 4451.
Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning
and Control, 9th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Laible, Myron. 'Changeable Message Signs: A Technology
Whose Time Has Come.' Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 16,
2 (1997): 375.
Lee,Wei-Na, and Margaret F. Calcott. 'Billboard
Advertising: A Comparison of Vice Products Across Ethnic Groups.'
Journal of Business Research 30 (1994): 8594.
Lusch, Robert F., Patrick Dunne, and Randall Gebhardt.
Retail Marketing. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing, 1993.
Marketing Factbook. Marketing News, July 8, 2002.
McGann, Anthony, and J. T. RUSSELL. Advertising Media,
2nd ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1988.
Neuborne, Ellen, and Ronnie Weil. 'Road Show. The New
Face of Billboards.' Business Week, May 8, 2000.
Outdoor Advertising Association Of America. Outdoor
Advertising Today. Washington, DC: Outdoor Advertising
Association of America, 2000.
Scenic America. Billboard and Sign Control. Washington,
DC: Scenic America, 2000: (http://www.scenic.org/billboards.htm)
Taylor, Charles R. 'A Technology Whose Time Has Come or
the Same Old Litter on a Stick? An Analysis of Changeable Message
Billboards.' Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16, 2
(1997): 17986.
_____, and Weih Chang. 'Issues in Outdoor Advertising
Regulation: A Historical Perspective.' Journal of Macromarketing
13, Spring (1995): 4759.
_____,and John C. Taylor. 'Regulatory Issues in Outdoor
Advertising: A Content Analysis of Billboards.' Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing 13, 1 (1994): 97108.
Vespe, Frank. 'High-Tech Billboards: The Same Old Litter
on a Stick.' Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 16, 1(1997):
176279.
Woodside, Arch. 'Outdoor Advertising as Experiments.' Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18, 3 (1990): 22937.
http://www.warc.com | © Advertising Research Foundation |